Actually, Guin, if I believed something as bizarre and irrational as modern Christianity, with its built-in contradictions and plush leather hypocrisy, I would hope that someone would come along and let me know how ridiculous my beliefs seemed.
So, I am doing unto others as I would have them do unto me. But perhaps you’d prefer that I do unto others as you’d have me do?
And the difference in the comments is that I’m laughing at your beliefs. You’re insulting my person.
I thought we weren’t talking about respect.
Gandhi on an MK47, MrVisible! You mean you believe that you’re a person? :eek:
Bullshit. There are so many different sects and sets of beliefs within Christianity, that it cannot be painted with that big ass brush you keep using. Ever hear of liberation theology?
Sez you.
If you don’t think my beliefs are a huge part of my person, then you really haven’t been paying too much attention, have you?
Come see me when you’ve knocked that chip off your shoulder.
That’s horrible and unfortunate. Unfortunately, I think your post was put on the wrong thread, as no one here is telling you what to say or not to say. And they’ve stressed that point repeatedly. Frankly, your ignorance of the topic at hand is the most offensive event in this whole thread. You stand amid a hilltop, surrounded by thousands of strawman corpses you have so valiantly slain.
A year ago, there would be dozens of dopers telling you that your argument here is “gay”. However, several pit threads and GD threads later, we’ve all come to an understanding that gay=lame is derisive and based in homophobia. Now, Jodi is telling you that she finds MSP to be based in bigotry and a lack of acceptance.
Honestly, if you find daily discourse with theists to be so taxing on your intellect and an insult to your sense of logic, why do you bother? Just to get a rise out of them? What’s the difference between that and trolling?
How about “your god” or “the diety you believe in, but I don’t”? It clearly shows that you’ve placed yourself outside of the classification of “Christian”, as well as removing any title to the aforementioned diety by not making it a proper noun. Seems simple enough to me. It’s clear, concise, not derisive.
There’s a big fat flashing neon line between “I don’t share your beliefs, nor do I see any logical connection to them” and “you’re a pointy-headed loon who has a Magical Sky Pixie as your imaginary friend.” Why are so many people confusing this with an incredibly subtle shade of gray?
Because there are some in this SDMB community asking you to. Asking for any other reason will only make people reading this thread motion sick from the merry-go-round arguments. You have free will to ignore that request, of course.
Noone is telling you to do anything. Once again, you can do whatever you want.
Save that for another thread. This thread is dealing with something else entirely.
I’ll take that for the compliment it is and say that I find your beliefs equally laughable, MrVisible.
Mr. Visible
Please excuse the weak analogy. My particular take on Christianity has no problem with homosexuality, but does not allow me to directly insult someone, so I’m not very good at this sort of thing. I used selfish as the best example I could come up with at 6 am of a misconception Christians have about atheists, just as stupid is a misconception some atheists have about Christians. Since I’ve read discussions in the Mensa national newsletter that have claimed “if we look at the top 1% in intelligence, all of them would be atheists”, it was the first thing that came to mind.
I do not consider atheists as a whole to be selfish, any more than I consider Christians as whole to be selfless. I’ll even grant that it’s easier for a Christian to be stupid (excuse me – my conscience is kicking in while I type that) than it is for an atheist because, at least in my experience, it’s much easier for Christians to just do what the priest/Bible tells them and not examine their beliefs. My experience with atheism is that people who are atheists arrive at that position by examining their beliefs.
One basic divide between me and Mr. Visible and perhaps others is that I am required by my faith to respect your beliefs and not insult you. I don’t, obviously, have to agree with them (for which I’m grateful – I get confused enough as it is!), but I do have to try to understand them. No, I’m probably not a typical Christian. I’m just a renegade Episcopalian trying to survive in a world which can be extremely brutal. Without belief in the MSP, or whatever you choose to call it/him/her, I would have been dead a decade ago if not longer.
One thing I have always loved about this board is that people can disagree without being insulting. I hope it remains that way.
CJ
What if I change the sentence to read this way?
“I don’t believe that all gay people are promiscuous AIDS ridden sluts. But I do think you’re all amusing.”
Is that insulting? Because that’s basically the same statement you made about “bible thumping homophobe” christians.
For some people that is one and the same.
Gee, does it sound like a sound assesment of his friend?
You try listening to yourself! Maybe you will hear what I hear. Sounds like this: “Gosh guys, I don’t tink yous beeing vawy nice! I don’t like whud you said, so stawp it!!”
This thread has been enough of a waste of time already. I’m outta here!
Jesus was in a coma.
You should know that nobody has to prove that something there’s no evidence for don’t exist. As usual, stating that god doesn’t exist isn’t a baseless claim, it’s the natural default position in front of a lack of evidence. Should I use the pixie analogy ?
Stating that a religious leader was a con-man or that the likehood that god exists is exactly similar to the likehood that pixies exist is not the same thing that making fun of someone. I can’t speak for the poster you were responding to, but you can make fun of atheism as much as you want. I won’t be pissed off. I don’t take religious beliefs seriously enough to feel worried by this kind of retaliation.
Now, why should you avoid to say that someone was a conman when you really believe he was? If you think people are deluded by a con man, and have good reasons to think so, shouldn’t it be your responsability to state so, rather than, by your silence, endorsing the crookery?
Depends on the circumstances. But why would I accept a given that i find ludicrous? Should I accept a political argument which will begin by “since the ETs are secretly controlling the country…”
Precisely, we’re on a forum where people spend most of their time arguing, not in family meeting where people intend to be accomodating to each other. People making statements here should expect that their assumptions will be srtrongly debatted.
I’m not sure why Jodi would have any right to restrict what we should discuss or not in this thread. Especially when knowing from where we atheists come and what we think is important to understand why we use such terms as “MSP”. People ask why we don’t display proper respect, so we have to explain why we don’t and possibly shouldn’t. What did you expect? That people would only answer to the OP double question by Yes/No or No/No?
Once again, i’m under no obligation to respect a belief I found ludicrous , especially when I find it dangerous as well. At the contrary.
Arguing about various “truth” is the essence of most of this board. What do you expect, once again?
So, we should avoid to openly show our disagreement about anything which is stated on this board, lest someone could be offended? By the way, there’s no way we could argue about the religious beliefs/the haircut of a poster if he doesn’t mention them first. Mentionning something people have strong opinions about on a debate board is unlikely to be ignored. If someone is so much concerned about Miss manners, he should avoid the SDMB GD as well as the political and religious arenas…
There’ s a major difference. One doesn’t choose to be gay. One choose one’s religious beliefs (or at least is supposed to). you’ve to cope with the flak you receive for your freely chosen opinion and beliefs. You don’t have to cope with criticisms about your sexual orientations, disabilities, nationality or race…
(of course some people believe that one can choose to be straight or gay…but it’s another debate entirely)
And by the way, sure, stating that believers are amusing is insulting (as an aside I unfortunately don’t think they’re amusing at all…though what I think is certainly as much insulting). But comparing gods and fairies isn’t. It’s a statement of my opinion about these legends.
And the merry-go-round continues…
Maybe a new thread for this epic battle between believers and non-believers should be started in Great Debates?
MRVISIBLE –
:: patiently :: No, it was not. This thread was started to ask if people using that term were aware that it can be offensive and, if so, whether they would consider not using it. As have been said, I think your answers to these questions are clear (“yes” and “no”), but kindly refrain from misrepresenting the thrust of the whole discussion. Though as to that, there are obvious reasons not to call a spade a spade in any number of situations. It might be impolitic (you don’t get your promotion); it might be unwise (you do get smacked in the kisser); it might be unkind. The unvarnished truth (as you see it) is not called for in every situation. Again, and has been said several times, this point is not about religion; it’s about common courtesy.
And I’d appreciate an answer to my question. Here, I’ll re-post it for you:
Actually, there are not much difference between these various beliefs, from an external point of view. Of course, since you’re refering to the liberation theology, there are very large differences in the conclusions these sects reach as to how they should interact with the world. But we’re talking about the belief in god, not about the socio-political leanings of christian people. And from this point of view, the differences between the most reactionnary protestant fundamentalist and the most marxist catholic liberation theologian are very tiny.
Well, in this case, it involves saying “small shovel-like object used to move dirt and sand and similar material around” instead of “spade”. As in, “A fundamental belief system which I feel is founded on fantasy or is otherwise completely incorrect” rather than “Magical Sky Pixie”.
Again, in some instances you are right. I disagree in this one, but I will not refer to religious fugures as magical, pixies, or existing anywhere but where you tell me you think they exist.
I’m still not putting on any berets, or funny hats in general. I just want to make sure that’s clear.
ERIS –
Oh, okay.
:: disappointedly and furtively, Jod puts the fez away ::
Does it undermine my whole argument if I cannot successfully spell my own name?
I have started this post eighteen times or so, and I can’t come up with anything that truly expresses my feeling about it.
So I am just going to say that I think it is telling that a thread asking for common courtesy concerning one’s beliefs, having nothing to do with WHY you should or should not agree with said beliefs, has turned into a venomous “debate” condemning said beliefs… most of the “debate” being done by people who disagree with said beliefs. That’s a lot of “saids”, I know. But please listen to yourselves, some of you? Most of what I have read here has nothing AT ALL to do with the OP. And those who have tried to bring the subject back TO the OP have been ignored in favor of bashing the beliefs mentioned.
It appears to me that you are just proving the truth of what she said in the OP. She asked that you show common courtesy even though you don’t agree with the beliefs a person holds. A lot of you respond, apparently, by saying that it is okay to be derisive because the beliefs she mentioned are so stupid that only an idiot would hold them, therefore you are justified in being rude and offensive when referring to them.
All Jodi asked was that out of respect for other people, you stop using derogatory words and phrases that express contempt for their beliefs. I accept that if someone you don’t agree with starts calling you an idiot because you don’t agree with them, all bets are off and you can have at it with my blessing. (Well, maybe not my blessing, but I see that if you take the first shot you are pretty much responsible for someone hitting you back.)
It is true that I am a Christian and sometimes very dismayed by the venom expressed toward my faith by some of the people on this board. But this is not just about Christians, it is about common courtesy toward other people’s beliefs. It is about showing respect for other people, unless they have given up the right to your respect by showing contempt for YOUR beliefs.
I am frustrated because I can’t seem to come up with the right words to say what I am thinking and feeling. And really, most of what I want to say has been said here already, but …it seems to me that it has been lost somewhere in the middle of all the posts seemingly defending the use of derogatory words and phrases with “Well, it’s okay because your beliefs are so ludicrous.”
I don’t think I have ever been this dissatisfied with a post in my life, but it seems to be the best I can do ATM.
I’m curious about how many other atheists like myself who’ve posted to this thread have problems wrapping their mind around the concept of the “Big Bang”. I’m not ashamed to admit that even though there is a preponderance of scientific evidence indicating that the universe probably sprang into existence as the result of a singular event, I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept (especially the “before the BB” type questions which are an inevitable part of testing any theory intellectually). When you really try to understand the BB, it’s ever bit as much of a challenge as understanding the “let there be light”, Creationist viewpoint on the origin of the universe. Some individuals accept the Big Bang theory without ever really asking the questions to which we don’t yet have answers, just as some people of faith accept the doctrines of that faith without question.
One reason I often use “the Force” as a term is because it is so generic - it can include both the belief in a diety as the thing that created and continues to power the universe without dismissing the totally scientific theory of “how all of this came into being”. It doesn’t exclude anyone’s beliefs.
I’ve stated many times that even if the existence of a Biblical “God” was proven tomorrow, I would feel an absolute obligation to oppose at every turn a being whose “true word” depicts it as a petty, vengeful, sadistic despot who makes Stalin and Hitler look like amateurs. In other words, far from worshipping that God, I would do everything in my power to destroy its influence.
None of that means that I don’t want to understand why people of faith hold the beliefs they do. Just as I feel patronised when people tell me that I’m going to Hell whether or not I believe in Hell, I’m sure that people of faith feel equally patronised when their belief system is dismissed out of hand (and people of one faith can be every bit as guilty of dimissing out of hand the faith of others as atheists are of dimissing belief in deities - read all the “72 virgins” threads posted after September 11 if you need examples).
The OP has said over and over that the issue here is not whether or not any one of us share or respect her belief system, it’s one of whether we are prepared to acknowledge that our choice of terminology can be offensive to other posters and how we respond to that knowledge.
I don’t have to believe in God or the Bible to think that “do unto others” is a pretty good rule to live by.
The question is why people on either side of the debate choose not only to use offensive terms (and I personally think MSP is kind of cute, and I often use the IPU to demonstrate a CONCEPT) if their intention is not to offend but to understand, but to defend their right to be offensive to the death and call it “fighting ignorance”.